Media Moments

May 2003

For
some time now I have been suffering from what I call “media moments.”
We have all heard of “senior moments,” a term used mostly
by people of mature years who suddenly experience a lapse in recall.
The mind goes blank and the individual complains, “I’m having a
senior moment.” A media moment is a little different. It happens
when you are reading or hearing what passes for the news. You are appalled
and frustrated by the conservative bias, the evasions, the non sequiturs,
and the outright disinformation. Your mind does not go blank; you simply
wish it would.

I recall
one media moment I experienced while listening to the BBC news. Now
the BBC supposedly provides coverage superior to what is heard on US
mainstream media. It occasionally runs stories on European and Third
World countries that are not likely to be carried by US newscasters.
And BBC reporters ask confrontational questions of the personages they
interview, applying a critical edge rarely shown by US journalists.
But the truth is, when it comes to addressing the fundamental questions
of economic power, corporate dominance, and Western globalization, BBC
journalists and commentators are as careful as their American counterparts
not to venture beyond certain orthodox parameters.

The recent
BBC segment that gave me my media moment was a special report on asthma,
of all things. It began by noting that the number of asthma sufferers
has been increasing at the alarming rate of 50 percent each decade.
“Scientists are puzzled,” for there is “no easy explanation”
the narrator tells us. One factor is “genetic predisposition.”
We hear from a British scientist who says, yes, there is definitely
a hereditary factor behind asthma; it tends to run in families. Sure,
I say to myself, asthma is increasing by 50 percent a decade because
people with a genetic tendency toward the disease are becoming more
sexually active and procreative than everyone else. I feel a media moment
coming on.

There
are other contributing factors to the asthma epidemic, the narrator
continues, for instance “lifestyle.” He interviews another
scientist who confirms this “scientific finding.” People are
keeping cleaner homes, using air conditioning, and in general creating
a more antiseptic lifestyle for themselves, the scientist says. This
means they do not get enough exposure to pollen, dust, and dirt the
way people did in the good old days. Hence, they fail to build up a
proper defense to such irritants.

These
comments made me think back to my younger years when I lived next to
a construction site that deposited daily clouds of dust over my abode
for months on end. Rather than building up a hardy resistance, I developed
an acute sensitivity to dust and mold that has stayed with me to this
day. Does exposure to a toxic environment really make us stronger? Looking
at the evidence on cancer, lung diseases, and various occupational ailments,
we would have to conclude that exposure does not inoculate us; rather
it seems to suppress or overload our immune systems, leaving us more
not less vulnerable.

The BBC
report on asthma then takes us to India for some actualité. A
young man suffering from the disease is speaking in a rasping voice,
telling of his affliction. This is accompanied by the squishing sound
of a hand-held respirator. The victim says he has no money for medication.
The narrator concludes that the disease persists among the poor in such
great numbers because they cannot afford medical treatment. I say to
myself, yes, but this doesn’t tell us what causes asthma in the first
place.

Another
“expert” is interviewed. He says that in India, as in most
of the world, asthma is found in greatest abundance in the congested
cities, less so in the suburbs, and still less in the countryside. No
explanation is given for this, but by now I can figure it out for myself:
the inner-city slum dwellers of Calcutta enjoy too antiseptic a lifestyle;
too much air-conditioning and cleanliness has deprived them of the chance
to build up a natural resistance. At this point I can feel the media
moment drawing ever closer.

The BBC
report makes no mention of how neoliberal “free market” policies
have driven people off the land, causing an explosion in slum populations
throughout the world. These impoverished urban areas produce the highest
asthma rates. And the report says nothing about how, as cigarette markets
in the West become saturated, the tobacco companies vigorously pursue
new promotional drives in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, leading to
a dramatic climb in Third World smoking rates, which certainly does
not help anyone's respiratory system.

Finally
the BBC narrator mentions pollution. He says it “may” be a
factor, but more study is needed. May? Furthermore, he asks, “Is
pollution really a cause or is it merely a trigger?” He seems to
be leaning toward “trigger,” although by now I am having trouble
seeing the difference. The media moment has come upon me full force.
I begin talking back at my radio, posing such cogent and measured comments
as “You jackass BBC flunky announcer!”

Media
apologists like to point out that journalists face severe constraints
of time and space, and must necessarily reduce complex realities into
brief reports; hence, issues are conflated, and omissions and oversights
are inevitable. But this BBC report went on for some ten minutes, quite
a long time by newscast standards. There would have been ample opportunity
to say something about how the use of automobiles has skyrocketed throughout
the entire world, causing severe damage to air quality especially in
cities. There would have been enough time to mention how the destruction
of rain forests and the dramatic increase in industrial emissions have
contributed to an alarming CO2 buildup and a commensurate decline in
the atmosphere's oxygen content. The BBC could have told us how the
oil cartels have kept us hooked on fossil fuel, while refusing to develop
nonpolluting, inexpensive tidal, wind, thermal, and solar energy systems.

But mainstream
media bosses would dismiss such revelations as “editorializing”
and ideologically motivated. Instead, this BBC report chose to be “balanced”
and “objective” by blaming the victims, their genetic predispositions,
their antiseptic lifestyles, and their inability to buy medications.

Newscasters
who want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion.
We should never accuse them of doing a poor and sloppy job of reporting.
If anything, with great skill they skirt around the most important points
of a story. With much finesse they say a lot about very little, serving
up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few
nutrients. Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic
power. It is enough to take your breath away.